Can a genuine, blood-bought, regenerated believer forfeit their salvation?

[Mark Quayle]

the faith of the good news:

Years ago, I listed all of the instances of the article + faith in the Greek NT. The list has 71 or so instances. It's an interesting study and part of a larger study I undertook to better understand how faith is spoken of in Scripture.

It's interesting that you picked up Jude 3 & Galatians 1:23. I'd add several more but will just add Hebrews 12:2 which in the Greek word order says, "...the of the faith originator and perfecter/finisher/accomplisher Jesus..."

So, with just Hebrews 12 & Jude 3, Jesus originated and completed the faith, and the faith was once for all handed over/delivered/passed on to the holy ones. Obviously, The Faith is some content.

So, I find your fill in the blank above to be interesting.

One of the ways that phrase in Philippians 1:27 can be translated is appositionally: the faith which is the good news.

Interestingly Galatians 1:23 in most translations simply translates as "preach/proclaim" the verb that many other times is translated as "preach/proclaim good news". The YLT picks this up and makes the good news = the faith: YLT Galatians 1:23 and only they were hearing, that 'he who is persecuting us then, doth now proclaim good news -- the faith that then he was wasting;'

There's a lot more to attach to this. Thanks for the reply.

John 6:65:

I think we agree. Jesus ties belief in Him to being granted by the Father to come to Him. One thing that does seem clear here is that our Father is in control of who comes to Christ and thus ultimately who believes.

The natural follow up would seem to be: His criteria? In the context of John 6 it seems mostly to be those who have heard & learned from the Father (John 6:45) and believed (John 6:29, 35, etc.). To include the Holy Spirit and other things, we have to branch out from John 6.

Assuming you agree, any thoughts about criteria - what He's looking for with a person?

What I'm saying, I don't say against you or what you have said here. I only note that one's pre-conceptions, and particularly, one's worldview, are almost impossible to put aside in Bible study. Again, I'm not saying that it shows in yours. I like very much how you study without drawing conclusions. Both Study and Reading-of-large-portions of Scripture should be done this way, which is maybe, ironically, the best way to avoid 'riding on preconceptions'.

Maybe it's mostly because so much of my time is spent in debate between Calvinist/Reformed theology vs Arminian and others, but the worldview I find so common, is not as much in arguments on particular passages as when I read someone trying to give a semi-comprehensive statement of the-way-of-things —though of course it happens often enough in both occasions.

In my case, I know I tend to overcompensate in the matter of being 'IN HIM', as it is one of my soapboxes, that people of both sides of just about any argument in current church times seem to operate from a POV of there being mainly two parties in matters of Salvation and Sanctification, and even in Heaven: God and mankind. While the Reformed/Calvinist wants to say that man has no part in causing his regeneration (which I agree with) they state it to the degree that it seems he is not even "in" the question (and I'm guilty of stressing it that way). Truth is, he's completely wrapped up in the matter (noticeably so, in various degrees), and, in fact, in all subsequent matters: faith, repentance, obedience, etc. I've had Arminians tell me that indeed God intends for us to become strong as we grow, so that the more we do for him, the less he has to do. The Reformed/Calvinist always rejects that kind of valuation outright, as applies to Salvation, but not always as applies to Sanctification, which lack of rejection to me ruins the whole 'theory' behind monergism. I think we are as clueless as a baby being natural-born when God is giving us new-birth, but it is, after all, we who are being born. But at any point, apart from Christ, we can do nothing, not even in Sanctification.

But, on the other hand, the notion that we are separate complete-entities from God, when we already know that we are NOT independent, NOT self-determining, but slaves to sin or to Christ, is to me absurd. Yet that is how we tend to think. One swift read-through of John 17 ought to destroy that notion! In fact, we have reason to believe we will never even be complete beings until we see him as he is, and the sons of God are revealed.

Just wanted to point this out, sorry (sort of) for getting carried away. Anyhow, thanks for listening, and I do appreciate your way of talking and thinking.

 

[Clare73]

the faith of the good news:
Years ago, I listed all of the instances of the article + faith in the Greek NT. The list has 71 or so instances. It's an interesting study and part of a larger study I undertook to better understand how faith is spoken of in Scripture.
It's interesting that you picked up Jude 3 & Galatians 1:23. I'd add several more but will just add Hebrews 12:2 which in the Greek word order says, "...the of the faith originator and perfecter/finisher/accomplisher Jesus..."
So, with just Hebrews 12 & Jude 3, Jesus originated and completed the faith, and

the faith was once for all handed over/delivered/passed on to the holy ones. Obviously, The Faith is some content.
So, I find your fill in the blank above to be interesting.
One of the ways that phrase in Philippians 1:27 can be translated is appositionally: the faith which is the good news.
Interestingly Galatians 1:23 in most translations simply translates as "preach/proclaim" the verb that many other times is translated as "preach/proclaim good news". The YLT picks this up and makes the good news = the faith: YLT Galatians 1:23 and only they were hearing, that 'he who is persecuting us then, doth now proclaim good news -- the faith that then he was wasting;'
There's a lot more to attach to this. Thanks for the reply.

When the NT refers to "the faith," it is referring to NT doctrine, not to the act or state of faith.

John 6:65:
I think we agree. Jesus ties belief in Him to being granted by the Father to come to Him. One thing that does seem clear here is that our Father is in control of who comes to Christ and thus ultimately who believes.

The natural follow up would seem to be: His criteria? In the context of John 6 it seems mostly to be those who have heard & learned from the Father (John 6:45) and believed (John 6:29, 35, etc.). To include the Holy Spirit and other things, we have to branch out from John 6.
Assuming you agree, any thoughts about criteria - what He's looking for with a person?

I don't find any notion of "criteria" in the NT.

John 3:3-8 doesn't seem to present one.
It presents only sovereign will and action, as we see regarding Jacob in Romans 9:11-13.

 

[GDL]

When the NT refers to "the faith," it is referring to NT doctrine, not to the act or state of faith.

Also flagging @Mark Quayle

That was my point. The Faith was originated & perfected. It's content, not verbal.

The translation I proposed in Philippians 1:27 and a few other verses can be saying The Faith is The Gospel (in its complete scope - all NT doctrine - content).

I don't find any notion of "criteria" in the NT.

John 3:3-8 doesn't seem to present one.
It presents only sovereign will and action, as we see regarding Jacob in Romans 9:11-13.

John 4:21-24:

• 2 chapters before John 6 where Jesus tells us our Father grants/gives people to Him, Jesus explains that our Father is now seeking certain people (John 4:23b). Jesus explains our Father's criteria in 4:23a & 4:24 (note "in Spirit & truth" & consider the new era - "hour is coming & now is" in 4:23)

• In John 4:21-24 Jesus uses the word translated as "worship" 8 times in just a few sentences. This is emphasis. Per BDAG Lexicon, the word means:

• [BDAG] προσκυνέω προσκυνέω (κυνέω ‘to kiss’) impf. προσεκύνουν; fut. προσκυνήσω; 1 aor. προσεκύνησα (trag., Hdt.+. Freq. used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before persons and kissing their feet or the hem of their garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or someth. holy.) to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully,

Does it not make sense that God is seeking those who will revere Him & do His will? Is He not able to know and determine who such people are?

Track this word through the NT. A few of 60 or so examples:

• First mention: NKJ Matthew 2:2 saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him." Note this translation: YLT Matthew 2:2 saying, 'Where is he who was born king of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and we came to bow to him.'
• Note how Paul elaborates this word: NKJ 1 Corinthians 14:25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.
• God's command to the angels: NKJ Hebrews 1:6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."
• You mentioned Jacob in Romans 9:11-13: NKJ Hebrews 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff. (looks like we don't have to be prostrate to bow in obeisance! Did God know beforehand the spirit of Jacob?)
• Before His throne: NKJ Revelation 4:10-11 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: 11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created."
• The Great Commission: NKJ Matthew 28:9...20 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him...16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted (Note what Jesus says next after some did not "worship"). 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

A few comparable in concept verses:

• Judgment context: NKJ Romans 14:11 For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God."
• Just the way it is and will be: NKJ Philippians 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

It's always been an issue of submission to authority, and it always will be - That's why He's called "God" and "Christ". Jesus humbled Himself in obedience for us and to exemplify for us who and what our Father is seeking. His predestined plan is to exalt some people in Christ. He knows what He's looking for and who He will grant to His Son.

Thoughts?

 

[GDL]

What I'm saying, I don't say against you or what you have said here. I only note that one's pre-conceptions, and particularly, one's worldview, are almost impossible to put aside in Bible study. Again, I'm not saying that it shows in yours. I like very much how you study without drawing conclusions. Both Study and Reading-of-large-portions of Scripture should be done this way, which is maybe, ironically, the best way to avoid 'riding on preconceptions'.

Maybe it's mostly because so much of my time is spent in debate between Calvinist/Reformed theology vs Arminian and others, but the worldview I find so common, is not as much in arguments on particular passages as when I read someone trying to give a semi-comprehensive statement of the-way-of-things —though of course it happens often enough in both occasions.

In my case, I know I tend to overcompensate in the matter of being 'IN HIM', as it is one of my soapboxes, that people of both sides of just about any argument in current church times seem to operate from a POV of there being mainly two parties in matters of Salvation and Sanctification, and even in Heaven: God and mankind. While the Reformed/Calvinist wants to say that man has no part in causing his regeneration (which I agree with) they state it to the degree that it seems he is not even "in" the question (and I'm guilty of stressing it that way). Truth is, he's completely wrapped up in the matter (noticeably so, in various degrees), and, in fact, in all subsequent matters: faith, repentance, obedience, etc. I've had Arminians tell me that indeed God intends for us to become strong as we grow, so that the more we do for him, the less he has to do. The Reformed/Calvinist always rejects that kind of valuation outright, as applies to Salvation, but not always as applies to Sanctification, which lack of rejection to me ruins the whole 'theory' behind monergism. I think we are as clueless as a baby being natural-born when God is giving us new-birth, but it is, after all, we who are being born. But at any point, apart from Christ, we can do nothing, not even in Sanctification.

But, on the other hand, the notion that we are separate complete-entities from God, when we already know that we are NOT independent, NOT self-determining, but slaves to sin or to Christ, is to me absurd. Yet that is how we tend to think. One swift read-through of John 17 ought to destroy that notion! In fact, we have reason to believe we will never even be complete beings until we see him as he is, and the sons of God are revealed.

Just wanted to point this out, sorry (sort of) for getting carried away. Anyhow, thanks for listening, and I do appreciate your way of talking and thinking.

Thanks for this Mark. I'm not sure I understand all of your point. I will reread.

FWIW, at a point some time ago I had to jettison as much of my trained preconceptions as I could, because I found them to be wrong. I, like most, was trained in a certain theological camp and was as tribal as the next camper who gets some level of camp training that includes why the other camps are wrong. Much training at some point makes camp soldiers and so we fight. I studied the major isms and honestly just set them all aside and went to the Word.

My track is simple now: What does God's Word say and what does God mean by the individual words He uses? After 3+ years of training and a few decades of practice, I know how to analyze Biblical Greek to a decent extent and can work my way in Hebrew. I have good digital tools that I've used and have been accumulating since before all the internet sites were available. I have a library of grammatical diagrams of all the NT Text & did my own diagramming for some years. I've been reading scholarly exegetical studies for about 3 decades. Etc.

Back to preconceptions: One of the main ones I've had since conversion and had a sense of before, is that God is God, and we are not and never will be. One of the studied preconceptions I have is that we must submit to Him and do His will. It all flows to and from there. I know human beings don't like the word "obedience" but apart from it we have no God even though we do.

I'd be interested in your thoughts re my most recent post back to Clare. You'll see that my "studied preconception" includes the "worship" concept discussed there.

Thanks again, Mark.

 

[GDL]

What I'm saying, I don't say against you or what you have said here. I only note that one's pre-conceptions, and particularly, one's worldview, are almost impossible to put aside in Bible study. Again, I'm not saying that it shows in yours. I like very much how you study without drawing conclusions. Both Study and Reading-of-large-portions of Scripture should be done this way, which is maybe, ironically, the best way to avoid 'riding on preconceptions'.

Maybe it's mostly because so much of my time is spent in debate between Calvinist/Reformed theology vs Arminian and others, but the worldview I find so common, is not as much in arguments on particular passages as when I read someone trying to give a semi-comprehensive statement of the-way-of-things —though of course it happens often enough in both occasions.

In my case, I know I tend to overcompensate in the matter of being 'IN HIM', as it is one of my soapboxes, that people of both sides of just about any argument in current church times seem to operate from a POV of there being mainly two parties in matters of Salvation and Sanctification, and even in Heaven: God and mankind. While the Reformed/Calvinist wants to say that man has no part in causing his regeneration (which I agree with) they state it to the degree that it seems he is not even "in" the question (and I'm guilty of stressing it that way). Truth is, he's completely wrapped up in the matter (noticeably so, in various degrees), and, in fact, in all subsequent matters: faith, repentance, obedience, etc. I've had Arminians tell me that indeed God intends for us to become strong as we grow, so that the more we do for him, the less he has to do. The Reformed/Calvinist always rejects that kind of valuation outright, as applies to Salvation, but not always as applies to Sanctification, which lack of rejection to me ruins the whole 'theory' behind monergism. I think we are as clueless as a baby being natural-born when God is giving us new-birth, but it is, after all, we who are being born. But at any point, apart from Christ, we can do nothing, not even in Sanctification.

But, on the other hand, the notion that we are separate complete-entities from God, when we already know that we are NOT independent, NOT self-determining, but slaves to sin or to Christ, is to me absurd. Yet that is how we tend to think. One swift read-through of John 17 ought to destroy that notion! In fact, we have reason to believe we will never even be complete beings until we see him as he is, and the sons of God are revealed.

Just wanted to point this out, sorry (sort of) for getting carried away. Anyhow, thanks for listening, and I do appreciate your way of talking and thinking.

My first response was re preconceptions. This will briefly address some of the rest of your post.

When I previously said I jettisoned much of my preconceived conceptions, this included my desires to discuss various camp-based theologies. By now, this has settled in to the point where I'd have to refresh myself as to what camp thinks what about whatever. Honestly, and I don't mean this in any confrontational way to you or to anyone, I don't really have much care what camps think any more.

I've become a very topical student of the Word and I like to discuss Scripture. When I was last teaching, I mostly taught topically, and I did what I could to get people to see & understand the Text. I told them if I ever heard them cite me as their authority, I would disown them. The Word is our authority, and the Spirit is our ultimate teacher. Learn & cite Him.

I appreciate how certain camp heroes have connected the dots through Scripture over the centuries, but we students know the work is not done and if we're open & honest, we will see that each major camp has some interesting thoughts to be considered. Honestly, I like my free agency and in it I have come to appreciate things I read from different camps that I was trained were the devil (so to speak).

As a bit more explanation, I have a very lengthy and in-depth topical study on "Faith" that I worked on for years on & off and is still a work in progress. When I asked you and @clare about faith being a gift, it was, oddly enough given all my work on Faith, because I never really cared much about this concept of it being a gift. As a Greek student I was very well versed on the language and arguments about Ephesians 2, but beyond that, other than in a discussion here or there, it wasn't that important to me. My natural tendency and focus have been, no matter how I've attempted to adjust them, to know what we Christians are supposed to be doing as Christians. Although I wouldn't normally use this terminology, as accommodation I'll say our Sanctification or walk interests me more than our Salvation or entrance. We're through the gate, now what's involved in reaching the destination and what is our cooperative part in it? What's involved in hearing the "well done" and on the way there honoring and glorifying our Father and Lord and Spirit as well as His Family can do in Christ by His Spirit?

No matter what any camp says, the Word seems very clear that we are involved cooperatively. If I ask to be helped and caused to do my best, I know I'm simply asking for more and more of His Grace and with God all things are possible.

I'm not sure I've addressed your points specifically enough, but I hope you get the overview of why I don't get too involved in the specific camp related systematized thoughts anymore. Theological truth will tie together perfectly. Whoever may have this is my friend no matter where you got it.

 

[Clare73]

Also flagging @Mark Quayle
That was my point. The Faith was originated & perfected. It's content, not verbal.
The translation I proposed in Philippians 1:27 and a few other verses can be saying The Faith is The Gospel (in its complete scope - all NT doctrine - content).
John 4:21-24:

2 chapters before John 6 where Jesus tells us our Father grants/gives people to Him, Jesus explains that our Father is now seeking certain people (John 4:23b). Jesus explains our Father's criteria in 4:23a & 4:24 (note "in Spirit & truth" & consider the new era - "hour is coming & now is" in 4:23)

"Seeking" because that is what he requires.
I understand Jesus to be stating the advent of the new order (Hebrews 9:10), and
the nature of worship in the new order: in spirit (Holy Spirit) and truth (Jesus)
which the Father "seeks" and, therefore, enables (because that is the only way he will get it).

In John 4:21-24 Jesus uses the word translated as "worship" 8 times in just a few sentences.

Not surprising, in light of her query to him regarding Samaritan "worship."

This is emphasis. Per BDAG Lexicon, the word means
[BDAG] προσκυνέω προσκυνέω (κυνέω ‘to kiss’) impf. προσεκύνουν; fut. προσκυνήσω; 1 aor. προσεκύνησα (trag., Hdt.+. Freq. used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before persons and kissing their feet or the hem of their garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or someth. holy.) to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully,

Does it not make sense that God is seeking those who will revere Him & do His will?

Whose "sense". . .man or God's?

Is He not able to know and determine who such people are?

Indeed. . .he "knows" and "determines" who they are just as he "knew" and "determined" which son of Abraham would inherit the promise (Romans 9:11-13).

Track this word through the NT. A few of 60 or so examples:
First mention: NKJ Matthew 2:2 saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him." Note this translation: YLT Matthew 2:2 saying, 'Where is he who was born king of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and we came to bow to him.

Note how Paul elaborates this word: NKJ 1 Corinthians 14:25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

God's command to the angels: NKJ Hebrews 1:6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."

You mentioned Jacob in Romans 9:11-13: NKJ Hebrews 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff. (looks like we don't have to be prostrate to bow in obeisance!
Did God know beforehand the spirit of Jacob?)

Is that what the text states? That God chose him because of his "spirit?" Are we adding to the text?
The text makes clear on what God's choice was based: on nothing but his sovereign purpose to elect Jacob.
We are not authorized to make additions to nor subtractions from the text, no further explanation here is either needed or warranted.

Before His throne: NKJ Revelation 4:10-11 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: 11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created."

The Great Commission: NKJ Matthew 28:9...20 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him...16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted (Note what Jesus says next after some did not "worship"). 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen

A few comparable in concept verses:

Judgment context: NKJ Romans 14:11 For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God."
Just the way it is and will be: NKJ Philippians 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

Which is not necessarily heart worship, it can simply be acknowledgement of power.

It's always been an issue of submission to authority, and it always will be

It's always been an issue of heart submission, not just compliance, and which is impossible apart from regeneration (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:3; John 3:3-5).

- That's why He's called "God" and "Christ". Jesus humbled Himself in obedience for us and to exemplify for us who and what our Father is seeking. His predestined plan is to exalt some people in Christ. He knows what He's looking for and who He will grant to His Son.

Thoughts?

Well. . .chiefly it does not take into account the rest of the NT regarding:
1) regeneration only by the sovereign will of God (John 3:3-8), as in the case of Jacob's purpose and election (Romans 9:11-13);
2) nature of unregenerate (without the Holy Spirit) man:
spiritually blind (John 3:3-5),
whose mind is hostile to God, does not submit to God's law, cannot please God (Romans 8:7-8),
who does not accept the things of God, cannot understand them because they are foolishness to him
(1 Corinthians 2:14), and
who by nature (with which we are born) is an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

No amount of "seeking" among that unregenerate herd will locate anyone who will "seek and revere
him". . .apart from his sovereign regenerating and enabling power (John 3:3-8).

 

[Mark Quayle]

I appreciate how certain camp heroes have connected the dots through Scripture over the centuries, but we students know the work is not done and if we're open & honest, we will see that each major camp has some interesting thoughts to be considered. Honestly, I like my free agency and in it I have come to appreciate things I read from different camps that I was trained were the devil (so to speak).

One time I made a statement my 'the other camp' uncle agreed with, that probably all denominations and cults have at least one thing about them, and that, usually included in their name or identifying reputation, that has at least some basis in fact (though, maybe, usually focused on too much) that other denominations and cults ignore, misrepresent, don't talk about enough, or miss altogether. I agree that there can be something worth learning/considering from most of them.

No matter what any camp says, the Word seems very clear that we are involved cooperatively. If I ask to be helped and caused to do my best, I know I'm simply asking for more and more of His Grace and with God all things are possible.

(Maybe I'm wrong, but) even within that statement I hear, or at least fear you have, the point of view that we are in-and-of-ourselves complete entities, separate from God. Not that you actually think we are on a level with God to be negotiating with him, but that concerning duty and ability and status and existence, we operate separately from him, as whole beings. (Please notice: I do NOT deny concerning all duty and every other part of being and growing, even in the joy and suffering of sanctification, that we MUST (and do) choose, and that we consider ourselves under the weight of responsibility. I freely admit that Scripture seems to present things that way, (eg, 'present your bodies a living sacrifice') yet I can't help but wonder if we don't read it into Scripture, that it is "that way".) After all, "..it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

I think I have more than enough evidence from Scripture, (and certainly from experience) that we are not complete beings until we see him as he is.

You may have noticed that I don't deny we have free will. I only deny that 'free will' is uncaused choice.

I'm not sure I've addressed your points specifically enough, but I hope you get the overview of why I don't get too involved in the specific camp related systematized thoughts anymore. Theological truth will tie together perfectly. Whoever may have this is my friend no matter where you got it.

Yes, I get what you are saying there.

You probably already notice that @Clare73 doesn't claim allegiance to any particular camp; I only identify myself as Reformed as a shortcut for others (particularly those who believe some of what I believe) to have some idea what I mean by what I say. (No doubt you have seen for yourself how long it takes for people to understand each other on these forums.)

As you say, "Theological truth will tie together perfectly." I would add, then, that "tie together perfectly" implies "makes sense" —no, I don't mean it has to make sense to me, in order to be truth, but if it doesn't make sense to me (and yes, Scripture trumps reason), I want to know why. I'm not often in a mood to go looking for proof for something that doesn't add up to me. But, whatever, Truth does make sense. Always.

To me, the notion of uncaused freewill invokes God is hands-off, and man operates independently, with God as only a spectator. Quite apart from the gall rising in my throat at such notions, it simply makes no sense to me. But I will admit that God can do anything he will —even if it makes no sense to me, or worse, if self-contradictory in any statement that sufficiently describes the notion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Does it not make sense that God is seeking those who will revere Him & do His will? Is He not able to know and determine who such people are?

That's rather a humorous comment to me, coming to mind because of recent debates as to determinism, in that 'determine' as you use it here, I could mistake to input the use: "cause". Thus, "He [is] able to know and determine who such people are" becomes "He [is] able to know and [cause] who such people are"

It's always been an issue of submission to authority, and it always will be - That's why He's called "God" and "Christ". Jesus humbled Himself in obedience for us and to exemplify for us who and what our Father is seeking. His predestined plan is to exalt some people in Christ. He knows what He's looking for and who He will grant to His Son.

Agreed, and yet, I must qualify 'seeking'. And I want to mention for any reader's sake that this 'plan' you describe is not "the whole of the Gospel" or "the essence of the Gospel" (I certainly don't think YOU mean that it is.)

As to the idea of God seeking out: There are many places in scripture that sound like, particularly in a first-reading, that God doesn't know and must find out, or that he only knows by seeing, not by causing. But good studies I have seen on most of these passages show things along the lines that fore"knowing" is causative in meaning and intent, and, in fact, very intimately so. When he looks to see what Job or Abraham will do, it is not because he doesn't already know, but because he is proving or demonstrating it, or testing it. The same sort of thing is found, even in English, in the language of jurisprudence, in statements such as "we will try the accused" and "I find the defendant 'not guilty'".

 

[Mark Quayle]

No amount of "seeking" among that herd will locate anyone who will "seek and revere him". . .apart from his sovereign regenerating and enabling power (John 3:3-8).

Amen that! And thanks for being sure it is mentioned. —not because it is defending denominational tenets, but because it is entirely Scriptural, and necessary.

 

[Rapture Bound]

The Soteriological Case for Molinism :

Introduction --

Here's a post that I hope clears up some of the common misunderstandings/misconceptions concerning the Molinist perspective. The Molinist perspective is first and foremost an attempt to shed further light upon the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free moral agency [free-will]. That is, how can both be true?, how can God sovereignly elect people to salvation while at the same time not stripping those people of their possession of free will?

The Molinist maintains that the best solution to the "dilemma" is one based upon the "both/and" model ... God remains sovereign and man retains free moral agency. Now, exactly what that looks like is of course the subject of intense controversy. However, that should be expected because it is a very deep dive that involves philosophical theology. I for one am not surprised at all, why would any thinking person suppose that topics such as God's predestination or the eternal security of the believer are easily perceived? The scriptures make it perfectly clear that there are subjects throughout scriptures that are "deep dives" [ 2 Peter 3:16 ... "hard to be understood"].

And since a consistent Molinist sides with neither the Calvinist or Arminian across the board on these matters, the Molinist yet exists in a sort of "hyperspace"... as a minority voice in the wilderness... although the scenario has slightly brightened over the past couple decades or so. For example, speaking along these lines, William Craig stated, "one thinker, Dean Zimmerman at Rutgers University, Christian philosopher, has said that Molinism is now the most popular theory of Divine Providence in human freedom that's out there. But that doesn't mean it has the majority, but it would be, say like, if it has like 35% ... everybody else has say 20% ...19% ... something like that. He says it's the most popular account today of Divine sovereignty and human freedom ...

I spoke at Calvin College and Seminary at Grand Rapids Michigan several years ago, they invited me me to do the Stave Lectures, and as I was speaking to the theology department of systematic theologians at Calvin's Seminary, we got to talking about this. And one of the theologians said to me, "Oh, we're all Molinists here ... and I said, "What?!" ... at Calvin Seminary? ... and he looked at his colleagues on either side of him ... and said, ... "Yeah".

Generally speaking, since Molinists accept some of the proposed doctrines that both of those camps hold to, they have been called "Calminians"... a "hybrid creature" of sorts that is a mixture of the Calvinist and the Arminian [although I don't find that term offensive whatsoever - it's "spot-on"]. And from what I've seen over the many years, many Christians suppose that a "Calminian" cannot logically exist... they view the term as an oxymoron.

That is to say, the vast majority of Christians generally would classify themselves as an Arminian or a Calvinist. Today's "theological climate" is one which seems as though every Christian is expected to make a decision concerning which theological system to "side" with [which a consistent Molinist does not do].



The Soteriological Case for Molinism :

"You can just about solve any [theological] problem if you sprinkle a little Molinism on it" - Scott Olson

Key points and comments :

@13:10 mins. - Molinism is not inherently a soteriological system, but elements of it can be applied to soteriology.

@13:33 mins. - "Mere Molinism" - A person is a mere Molinist if they affirm :

(a) God is in control of everything

(b) man is genuinely free [although limitations exist].

(c) God uses middle knowledge to accomplish His purposes.

Luis de Molina [the "father" of Molinism] was a Jesuit priest who attempted to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within.

Concerning the issue of the permanent status of a regenerated person, Molina disagreed with Roman Catholicism's position. Thomas Aquinas [a Dominican friar and priest] is considered one of the Roman Catholic Church's ["RCC"] greatest theologians and philosophers. Pope Benedict XV declared that the Dominion Order acquired a new luster when the RCC declared the teachings of Aquinas to be her own and honored him with the special praises of the Pontiffs as the "master and patron of the RCC schools."

Molina's doctrine of justification [the most critical issue of all within soteriology] differed from Aquina's in that Molina considered justification as a definitive, once-for-all transformative event occurring at the outset of an individual's journey of discipleship that causes the individual's soul to thereafter generate the desires necessary for following Christ. Even though a person has not done good works yet, given that person's transformed nature, it only logically follows that they will perform good works.

By contrast, Aquinas considered justification a lifetime process in which the sinner, through the performance of good works, is gradually transformed into a saint.

Molina differentiated justification from sanctification, while Aquinas regarded the two concepts as synonymous..

Council of Trent sixth session [celebrated on the thirteenth day of January, 1547] -
Decree Concerning Justification :

Canon 15. If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide [from faith] to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone say that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out ... that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged ... before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

According to the RCC, a person will just have to "wait and see" if they will enter Heaven when they die [based upon their degree of transformation into the image of Christ]. Their theology simply does not allow a person to have the understanding and assurance in the here and now that they will go to heaven when they draw their final breath in this world. Their justified status before God is viewed as being static, and subject to change based [grounded] upon their moral conduct.

The scriptures tell us that God's justifying edict is a settled [judicial] verdict, founded on the righteousness of Christ alone and received by faith alone ... which always and inevitably brings about the sanctification of those justified.

Unlike Luther and Calvin, Molina held that the sinner's placing faith in Christ to obtain justification is a free decision on the sinner's part such that the sinner could have done otherwise. The sinner is enabled to make that decision through the accompanying aid of the Holy Spirit's prodding and illumination [i.e. - "prevenient grace"], thereby rejecting the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace.

@13:33 mins. - Molina asserted that God's knowledge can be divided into 3 logical moments :

(a) Natural - His knowledge of everything that [could] happen in any given circumstance.

(b) Middle - His knowledge of everything that [would] happen in any given circumstance.

(c) Free - His knowledge of everything that actually [will] happen in any given circumstance. Free knowledge is synonymous with foreknowledge.

@55:45 mins. - the warning passages scattered throughout the scriptures ... what are we to do with them?

The most common objection to a Molinist's perspective on those warning passages runs something like this :

"The problem with fearing warnings that are not real, is that they end up being meaningless as far as consequences go. As I look through history as God has written it - which the author of Hebrews does - God's warnings are real and He is to be accordingly feared."

In response I would say :

The Molinist does not claim that the warnings [along with the consequences] aren't real.
For example, let's take the warning label on lawnmowers. Manufacturers are lawfully required to mark an easily seen warning that says something along these lines, "DANGER!! ... KEEP HANDS AND FEET AWAY TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH"

A Molinist can assert :

(1) What is the purpose of the warning? ... to prevent serious injury or death.

(2) Is it logical or coherent to assert that any person will or must actually place their hands or feet under the lawnmower in order to make the warning real? ... I don't believe so.

(3) Whether or not a person complies with the warning does not do away with the actual consequences that accompany failure to do so.

(4) Whether or not, and which persons, will actually fail to heed the warning(s) and suffer the real consequences is an entirely distinct question.

(5) The warning passages [scattered throughout the scriptures] are just one of the many means that God utilizes to preserve His children safely into their Heavenly inheritance.

@1:40:00 mins. - Does the Molinist reject or support the theory of transworld damnation? ...
Both are viable options for the Molinist [without breaking the limits or parameters of being a "mere Molinist"].

 

[GDL]

"Seeking" because that is what he requires.

Agreed, I think.

I understand Jesus to be stating the advent of the new order (Hebrews 9:10), and
the nature of worship in the new order: in spirit (Holy Spirit) and truth (Jesus)
which the Father "seeks" and, therefore, enables (because that is the only way he will get it).

Again, agreed, I think. However, to clarify, it's not just the new order of proskuneo (definition previously supplied) in Spirit & Truth that's being sought and enabled. John 4:23b clearly says, "for the Father is seeking such [men (people)] who will proskuneo Him" and "such [men] specifically points to those spoken of in context.

Also, the continuing context identifies Jesus as the coming Messiah and the discussion is with a woman we would have to identify as an unbeliever.

Not surprising, in light of her query to him regarding Samaritan "worship."

Disagreed. Such repetition is a highlighting in the Text and unusual.

Whose "sense". . .man or God's?

Both. Man's if he understands who God is and what He is putting His creation through in order to have a creature who willingly obeys Him and truly loves Him. God's as He certainly knows what He wants and makes it abundantly clear.

Indeed. . .he "knows" and "determines" who they are just as he "knew" and "determined" which son of Abraham would inherit the promise (Romans 9:11-13).

Is that what the text states? That God chose him because of his "spirit?" Are we adding to the text?
The text makes clear on what God's choice was based: on nothing but his sovereign purpose to elect Jacob.
We are not authorized to make additions to nor subtractions from the text, no further explanation is either needed or warranted.

Point taken but it's an inquiry not an addition. It's my practice to ask questions of the Word and I have had many of them answered over time as I study.

The point is that proskuneo is applied to Jacob in the NC (taken from Genesis 47:31) and I normally see God's words - especially ones that Jesus greatly emphasizes - being of importance. Also, since proskuneo is used in the LXX of Gen47:31 we can see the Hebrew word it translates means to bow down deeply, do obeisance and we can track it through the OC to see its importance, including how it is used to speak of a time when the gentiles will proskuneo.

Last point re this: unless we are willing to go through a lot of study, which I'm not, it seems unreasonable to say such inquiry is not warranted as if Romans 9:11-13 is the only section of Scripture we can learn about Jacob and Esau and attempt to glean some information as to why this wording is applied to Jacob in both covenants.

Which is not necessarily heart worship, it can simply be acknowledgement of power.

I don't normally get into such [head vs.] heart terminology, but I'll take your point and say that it's God who is determining what He wants from men, and I'm satisfied He knows how to differentiate. Furthermore, I'm satisfied He knows who He is granting and what the end will be.

It's always been an issue of heart submission, not just compliance, and which is impossible apart from regeneration (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:3; John 3:3-5).

Aside from the heart submission terminology which you would have to explain so I know precisely what you mean by it and what you base it on, I'm not really speaking of compliance. I'm speaking of criteria God may use to determine whom He grants to His Son.

Do you apply God's purpose and will in choosing Jacob to what He does with all men? Are we going to delve into election? Hopefully not since we were just discussing possible criteria for granting.

Well. . .chiefly it does not take into account the rest of the NT regarding:
1) regeneration only by the sovereign will of God (John 3:3-8), as in the case of Jacob's purpose and election (Romans 9:11-13);
2) nature of unregenerate (without the Holy Spirit) man:
spiritually blind (John 3:3-5),
whose mind is hostile to God, does not submit to God's law, cannot please God (Romans 8:7-8),
who does not accept the things of God, cannot understand them because they are foolishness to him
(1 Corinthians 2:14), and
who by nature (with which we are born) is an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

No amount of "seeking" among that unregenerate herd will locate anyone who will "seek and revere him"... apart from his sovereign regenerating and enabling power (John 3:3-8).

It doesn't necessarily have to take into account all of these things unless you're set on total depravity and a certain view of election and there being nothing in man that God looks at, which your last statement looks to state.

I see you referencing Romans quite a bit. How do you deal with unregenerate man's responsibility to glorify and be thankful to God based upon general revelation (Romans 1)? In being theologically instructed did you ever hear teachings about "God consciousness"?

You mention the heart of man and you have brought up election with Jacob. Does God not know the hearts of men?

NKJ Acts 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen​

How about before any more of this discussion, we just focus on John 4? Or, if you don't see any concept of criteria there for whatever your reasoning, we can leave it at that.

 

[Clare73]

The Soteriological Case for Molinism :
Introduction -- Here's a post that I hope clears up some of the common misunderstandings/misconceptions concerning the Molinist perspective. The Molinist perspective is first and foremost an attempt to shed further light upon the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free moral agency [free-will]. That is, how can both be true?, how can God sovereignly elect people to salvation while at the same time not stripping those people of their possession of free will?

1) I find what Scripture presents to be a simple solution.

Free will being the ability (power) to voluntarily choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers, likes. . .and

understanding that the human will does not operate in a vacuum, but is governed by the disposition (what one prefers),

Scripture presents God working in the disposition (Philippians 2:13), giving one to prefer his will, which is then freely, willingly and voluntarily chosen by the individual.

No stripping of free will, no loss of free (voluntary) moral agency, complete freedom of the will to voluntarily choose what one prefers.

God does not violate human free will, he uses it to bring in the elect.

2) And I am in agreement with warnings as one of the means God uses to preserve the elect.
The unregenerate do not bother to heed them, but the regenerate do so (Philippians 2:13 again) and are, therefore, kept from fatally falling.

 

[GDL]

(Maybe I'm wrong, but) even within that statement I hear, or at least fear you have, the point of view that we are in-and-of-ourselves complete entities, separate from God. Not that you actually think we are on a level with God to be negotiating with him, but that concerning duty and ability and status and existence, we operate separately from him, as whole beings. (Please notice: I do NOT deny concerning all duty and every other part of being and growing, even in the joy and suffering of sanctification, that we MUST (and do) choose, and that we consider ourselves under the weight of responsibility. I freely admit that Scripture seems to present things that way, (eg, 'present your bodies a living sacrifice') yet I can't help but wonder if we don't read it into Scripture, that it is "that way".) After all, "..it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

I think I have more than enough evidence from Scripture, (and certainly from experience) that we are not complete beings until we see him as he is.

You may have noticed that I don't deny we have free will. I only deny that 'free will' is uncaused choice.

I'm having to think a little too hard get your point here and I don't know what you mean by "complete beings".

I will say that Philippians 2:13 is in context speaking of God's relationship with His obedient children who are cooperatively working with Him under Apostolic command in accomplishing their salvation. It's not a blanket statement to apply beyond that.

Yes, I get what you are saying there.

You probably already notice that @Clare73 doesn't claim allegiance to any particular camp; I only identify myself as Reformed as a shortcut for others (particularly those who believe some of what I believe) to have some idea what I mean by what I say. (No doubt you have seen for yourself how long it takes for people to understand each other on these forums.)

As you say, "Theological truth will tie together perfectly." I would add, then, that "tie together perfectly" implies "makes sense" —no, I don't mean it has to make sense to me, in order to be truth, but if it doesn't make sense to me (and yes, Scripture trumps reason), I want to know why. I'm not often in a mood to go looking for proof for something that doesn't add up to me. But, whatever, Truth does make sense. Always.

To me, the notion of uncaused freewill invokes God is hands-off, and man operates independently, with God as only a spectator. Quite apart from the gall rising in my throat at such notions, it simply makes no sense to me. But I will admit that God can do anything he will —even if it makes no sense to me, or worse, if self-contradictory in any statement that sufficiently describes the notion.

I haven't seen @Clare73 affiliations or lack thereof.

I've noted some Reformed concepts in your writings. FWIW, most of the limited amount of reading or listening I may do these days is from the Reformed and usually selectively topical.

I have noticed on these forums that understanding is slow, but like emails, this medium is not the best way to communicate. Mostly what I've seen is that most minds are made up and arguments are the most prevalent communications. But that seems normal for the theological arena.

Re making sense: yes, but then we reach another level of understanding and some of what made sense can need adjusting.

I don't have any notion of God not being intimately involved in His creation nor that His thinking is not infinitely beyond ours. My issues are with people who think it reasonable to make certain types of absolute statements as if any of us are qualified to do so. My conversion point included a realization that "experts" is a word we should use very sparingly about people, if at all.

 

[GDL]

That's rather a humorous comment to me, coming to mind because of recent debates as to determinism, in that 'determine' as you use it here, I could mistake to input the use: "cause". Thus, "He [is] able to know and determine who such people are" becomes "He [is] able to know and [cause] who such people are"

Words are indeed interesting but don't make the mistake as cause was not my meaning. However, if we begin questioning such words, I can think of a few things to address.

Agreed, and yet, I must qualify 'seeking'. And I want to mention for any reader's sake that this 'plan' you describe is not "the whole of the Gospel" or "the essence of the Gospel" (I certainly don't think YOU mean that it is.)

As to the idea of God seeking out: There are many places in scripture that sound like, particularly in a first-reading, that God doesn't know and must find out, or that he only knows by seeing, not by causing. But good studies I have seen on most of these passages show things along the lines that fore"knowing" is causative in meaning and intent, and, in fact, very intimately so. When he looks to see what Job or Abraham will do, it is not because he doesn't already know, but because he is proving or demonstrating it, or testing it. The same sort of thing is found, even in English, in the language of jurisprudence, in statements such as "we will try the accused" and "I find the defendant 'not guilty'".

Yes, there is much language of accommodation in our Text - like Paul talking in "human terms" per Romans 6:19. I'm simply using the language from John 4 and noting what it says. In the background I'm normally considering omniscience and such.

 

[Clare73]

I see you referencing Romans quite a bit.
How do you deal with unregenerate man's responsibility to glorify and be thankful to God based upon general revelation (Romans 1)?

Natural revelation in creation can produce natural understanding and responses of gratitude.

Not to be mistaken with spiritual understanding and responses required for salvation and sonship.

In being theologically instructed did you ever hear teachings about "God consciousness"?

I have not seen anything about God consciousness in my study of the Scriptures as my theological instruction.

You mention the heart of man and you have brought up election with Jacob.
Does God not know the hearts of men?

According to NT apostolic teaching, what God knows is that
the unregenerate heart of man does not accept spiritual things from God because he does not understand them, for they are foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14), and he wants no part of foolishness.
What God knows is that unregenerate man is spiritually blind (John 3:3-5),
and by nature (with which he is born) an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

There are no unregenerate hearts pleasing to God (Romans 8:7-8).
And regenerate hearts are the work of God, not man.

 

[GDL]

Natural revelation in creation can produce natural understanding and responses of gratitude.

Not to be mistaken with spiritual understanding and responses required for salvation and sonship.

Romans 1:18-32:

• What can be known of God (see next point) is evident among men - God has revealed it to them
• From the creation of the world God's invisibles [attributes] - both His eternal power and divine nature - are perceived, being understood by the made [things]
• Knowing God, men did not glorify [Him] as God nor give thanks
• Men changed the glory of the immortal God in the likeness of an image of mortal man
• Men exchanged the truth of God for a lie
• Men revered and served the creation instead of the Creator
• Men did not value to have God in experiential knowledge
• Men are many vile things including haters of God (see Romans 8:7-8 below)
• Men know the regulation of God, that they are deserving of death, and they do these vile things anyway and approve of others who are accomplishing [them]

That's quite a bit of knowing and understanding about God and things of God. The case is made that natural man knows & understands quite a bit but doesn't see any value in knowing Him.

Some of us use this info to reject claims of atheism & agnosticism & call it rejection of God instead. Of course, they reject God and Scripture so it's not much use.

Back to criteria in John 4, it seems to me God is looking for (accommodation language) something quite a bit different than the above and has plenty of information to go by as He assesses men.

I have not seen anything about God consciousness in my study of the Scriptures as my theological instruction.

Part of the God Consciousness teaching stems from the above. Natural man has more than a simple awareness of God. It's a matter of how man responds to this consciousness he has.

According to NT apostolic teaching, what God knows is that the unregenerate heart of man does not accept spiritual things from God because he does not understand them, for they are foolishness to him
(1 Corinthians 2:14), and he wants no part of foolishness.

There are no unregenerate hearts pleasing to God (Romans 8:7-8).
And regenerate hearts are the work of God, not man.

1 Corinthians is indeed about the things the Holy Spirit teaches and this is in the context of the hidden wisdom of God. It is not the general revelation discussed in Romans 1 that God holds all men responsible for responding positively to. Romans 1 seems to argue against a total inability of unregenerate man to know and respond to certain things about God.

Some who teach God Consciousness teach that God will reveal spiritual information to those who respond positively to general revelation.

Romans 8:7-8 says the fleshly mind-set is hatred for God for it is not subordinate to God's Law, nor is it able to be. I'm OK with your paraphrase in concept but I'd rather be precise and stick with what the Text says. If we stay with your paraphrase, then being subordinate to God's Law pleases Him.

I agree that God does the regeneration, but that is beyond the discussion of criteria for granting in John 4 cf. 6.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Aside from the heart submission terminology which you would have to explain so I know precisely what you mean by it and what you base it on, I'm not really speaking of compliance. I'm speaking of criteria God may use to determine whom He grants to His Son.

Do you apply God's purpose and will in choosing Jacob to what He does with all men? Are we going to delve into election? Hopefully not since we were just discussing possible criteria for granting.

Election is necessarily part of the discussion. It is unavoidable, unless all you want to do is point and say "Hey, look, picture!". God's election is logically not a choosing from among possibles, but in fact, his making each creature for God's particular use. He doesn't look for criteria, if you insist on that word's value there —he creates that criteria. Now if you mean criteria not inherent in the person created, but gained later, then he causes that criteria.

 

[GDL]

Election is necessarily part of the discussion. It is unavoidable, unless all you want to do is point and say "Hey, look, picture!". God's election is logically not a choosing from among possibles, but in fact, his making each creature for God's particular use. He doesn't look for criteria, if you insist on that word's value there —he creates that criteria. Now if you mean criteria not inherent in the person created, but gained later, then he causes that criteria.

You do realize this is one interpretive position based upon a certain view of election, correct?

As I've clearly revealed, it would be helpful for you to present Scripture, at least in discussion with me. If you'd rather not, I understand. But apart from making the case with Scripture, all we have here is a viewpoint. Granted, we may well disagree on interpretation of Scripture, but we'll at least be presenting our case using the Standard.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Natural revelation in creation can produce natural understanding and responses of gratitude.

Not to be mistaken with spiritual understanding and responses required for salvation and sonship.

I have not seen anything about God consciousness in my study of the Scriptures as my theological instruction.

According to NT apostolic teaching, what God knows is that
the unregenerate heart of man does not accept spiritual things from God because he does not understand them, for they are foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14), and he wants no part of foolishness.
What God knows is that unregenerate man is spiritually blind (John 3:3-5),
and by nature (with which he is born) an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

There are no unregenerate hearts pleasing to God (Romans 8:7-8).
And regenerate hearts are the work of God, not man.

@GDL says, "In being theologically instructed did you ever hear teachings about "God consciousness"?"
"You mention the heart of man and you have brought up election with Jacob.
Does God not know the hearts of men?"

Were you going somewhere with these questions? Seems like you wanted to say something.

What is this term, "God consciousness", anyway? Sounds a bit catchy-trendy to me.

Why did you ask, "Does God not know the hearts of men?" Are you rhetorically implying something about Election and Jacob?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Words are indeed interesting but don't make the mistake as cause was not my meaning. However, if we begin questioning such words, I can think of a few things to address.

I was just commenting that it struck me funny. I knew you meant no such use there.

Yes, there is much language of accommodation in our Text - like Paul talking in "human terms" per Romans 6:19. I'm simply using the language from John 4 and noting what it says. In the background I'm normally considering omniscience and such.

Thank you, brother.